A new research brief developed by the Nutrition Policy Institute presents findings from an evaluation that examines how changing the maximum dollar-for-dollar match incentive levels offered to CalFresh participants at farmers markets impacted markets sales revenues. The California Nutrition Incentive Program (GusNIP in California) provides CalFresh shoppers with a dollar-for-dollar match when purchasing California-grown produce at participating markets. In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the California Department of Food and Agriculture acquired funds to temporarily increase the maximum incentive from $10 to $15 at a sample of farmers markets. NPI researchers evaluated farmers market sales revenue data to compare the amounts of monthly CNIP and CalFresh dollars distributed and redeemed between markets where the CNIP maximum incentive level increased and those that didn't. The increases were temporary, occurring from September 1, 2021 to March 31, 2022, allowing researchers to examine trends when the markets increased the incentive and when the incentive returned to its original value. The evaluation found that increasing the maximum CNIP incentive level led to statistically significant increases in the dollar amounts of CNIP and CalFresh that were distributed at farmers markets. However, it did not find statistically significant effects on the amounts of CNIP or CalFresh that were redeemed at markets. Reducing the maximum CNIP incentive level led to a statistically significant reduction in the trend of amount of CNIP redeemed per month.
A new research brief developed by the Nutrition Policy Institute details findings from an evaluation of the California Nutrition Incentive Program, a program that provides CalFresh shoppers with a dollar-for-dollar match when purchasing California-grown produce at participating farmers markets and other retail outlets. In this evaluation, NPI researchers conducted surveys and interviews with a convenience sample of CalFresh shoppers and food store managers. Overall, CalFresh shoppers reported overwhelmingly positive experiences using CNIP and store managers also found the program to be beneficial. While the results showed that CNIP utilization did not have statistically significant impacts on quantitative measures of shoppers' produce intake or food security, shoppers did report that CNIP influenced the kinds of fruits and vegetables they bought and also attributed being able to buy more fruits and vegetables to this program. CalFresh shoppers wanted CNIP to continue and supported it expanding to other retail outlets.
A new research brief developed by the Nutrition Policy Institute details findings from an evaluation of the California Nutrition Incentive Program, a program that provides CalFresh shoppers with a dollar-for-dollar match when purchasing California-grown produce at participating farmers markets and other retail outlets. In this evaluation, NPI researchers conducted surveys and interviews with a convenience sample of CalFresh shoppers and food store managers. Overall, CalFresh shoppers reported overwhelmingly positive experiences using CNIP and store managers also found the program to be beneficial. While the results showed that CNIP utilization did not have statistically significant impacts on quantitative measures of shoppers' produce intake or food security, shoppers did report that CNIP influenced the kinds of fruits and vegetables they bought and also attributed being able to buy more fruits and vegetables to this program. CalFresh shoppers wanted CNIP to continue and supported it expanding to other retail outlets.
The California Nutrition Incentive Program provides CalFresh—known as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program nationally—participants monetary incentives for the purchase of California grown fruits and vegetables at Certified Farmers Markets and small businesses. Nutrition Policy Institute was recently awarded a contract to determine how CNIP benefits can be equitably distributed in communities where participating retailers operate and to understand the impact of CNIP participation on participants' produce purchases, produce intake, and food and nutrition security. The 27-month project started on January 1, 2023, and includes NPI's Wendi Gosliner as Principal Investigator, Sridharshi Hewawitharana as project manager, and Samantha Sam-Chen as data collection manager. The team has conducted previous evaluations of CNIP, showing its promising associations with decreased participant food insecurity as well as highlighting participants' fondness and appreciation for the program and their perceptions that it increases the quantity and variety of California-grown fruits and vegetables they consume. This project is funded by a contract with the California Department of Food and Agriculture.
- Author: Katherine Lanca
- Editor: Danielle L. Lee
- Editor: Lorrene Ritchie
Healthy default beverage laws require restaurants to list healthier beverages—such as water or unflavored milk as opposed to sugary drinks—as the default option for children's meals. These laws intend to address unhealthy beverage consumption by young children, directing consumers toward healthier beverage choices at no additional cost. New research evaluates the adherence of children's meals to healthy default beverage laws from online restaurant meal ordering platforms available in Los Angeles, Baltimore, and New York City. Among over 100 of the top-grossing restaurant chains sampled, fewer than 3% of online children meal orders in any jurisdiction adhered to the strictest interpretation of the healthy default beverage laws. Varying adherence to healthy default beverage laws by jurisdiction was found and may be attributable to differing definitions of a healthy beverage. For example, California's law considers non-flavored milk and water as healthy default beverage options, while Baltimore and New York laws also allow 100% juice and flavored milk. Policy can be optimized by clearly defining healthy beverages, bundled children's meals, and what constitutes adherence to the law for online ordering platforms. The study, published in the American Journal of Preventative Medicine, was conducted by Daniel Zaltz and Sara Benjamin-Neelson of Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Danielle Lee, Gail Woodward-Lopez, and Lorrene Ritchie of the Nutrition Policy Institute, and Sara Bleich of Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health with partial support from a grant from the National Institutes of Health (no. T32DK062707).
